"Proof" of God. An ontological argument from sufficient reason.

P1. It is proposed that a being is maximally excellent if it is omnipotent, omniscient and wholly good

P2. It is proposed that a being is unsurpassably great if it has maximal excellence and if there is no possible explanation which accounts for its non-existence

P3. Everything that exists or does not exist has a possible explanation for why it does or does not exist

P4. If an unsurpassably great being does not exist there is no possible explanation for why he does not exist (from 2)

P5. If an unsurpassably great being does not exist there is a possible explanation for why he does not exist (from 3)

P6. The proposition that an unsurpassably great being does not exist is self-contradictory and necessarily false (from 4 and 5)

Therefore: An unsurpassably great being exists

Therefore: An unsurpassably great being exists

domatron23

Yeah, me.

Hang on. You're basing a later part of your argument on what seems to be just an assumption.

Funky_Llama

I'm not assuming that an unsurpassably great being has no possible explanation for its non-existence, I'm defining an unsurpassably great being as something which has no possible explanation for its non-existence (and the qualities of God).

EDIT: Huh, your post just disappeared.

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]Hang on. You're basing a later part of your argument on what seems to be just an assumption.

domatron23

I'm not assuming that an unsurpassably great being has no possible explanation for its non-existence, I'm defining an unsurpassably great being as something which has no possible explanation for its non-existence (and the qualities of God).

EDIT: Huh, your post just disappeared.

Proof of God?

EDIT: Huh, your post just disappeared.domatron23

I fail to see how this proves anything at all.

If God was truly perfect, he would have little reason to exist, or indeed to do anything. Why create this world if he was perfect?

Should we have a religon Board or will some irreversiable disaster unfold?

I fail to see how this proves anything at all.bangell99

If God was truly perfect, he would have little reason to exist, or indeed to do anything. Why create this world if he was perfect?

bangell99

Everything must either exist or not exist.

If it does exist it will eventually be destroyed. If all things were just accidents eventually all would be destroyed. Everything which exists must have had a cause for its existence and the chain of causes can't go back indefinitely.

There must have been something which always existed. That thing is God.

There must have been something which always existed. That thing is God.

LOLuMADzz

Yes it is impossible for something that exists to be non-existing, but then you have to assume it actually exists am I right? :P

I believe in God btw :D

It seems to me that this argument would work for pretty much any qualities... there's nothing really special here about omnipotence, omniscience and... ehm... wholly goodness. You could stick pretty much any other qualities in there and prove whatever the hell you wanted to.Funky_Llama

Yes it is impossible for something that exists to be non-existing, but then you have to assume it actually exists am I right? :P

I believe in God btw :D

Dark-Sithious

Proof that god exists: Marijuana

[QUOTE="Dark-Sithious"]

Yes it is impossible for something that exists to be non-existing, but then you have to assume it actually exists am I right? :P

I believe in God btw :D

domatron23

I have thenyet to see a flaw in your logic, well done

Proof that god exists: Marijuana

shoot-first

P1. It is proposed that a being is maximally excellent if it is omnipotent, omniscient and wholly good

P2. It is proposed that a being is unsurpassably great if it has maximal excellence and if there is no possible explanation which accounts for its non-existence

P3. Everything that exists or does not exist has a possible explanation for why it does or does not exist

P4. If an unsurpassably great being does not exist there is no possible explanation for why he does not exist (from 2)

P5. If an unsurpassably great being does not exist there is a possible explanation for why he does not exist (from 3)

P6. The proposition that an unsurpassably great being does not exist is self-contradictory and necessarily false (from 4 and 5)

Therefore: An unsurpassably great being exists

domatron23

Although you could draw question marks to several of your points.

A maximally great being that does not exist, naturally has an explanation to why it doesn't exist, following your point P3, Everything that exists or does not exist has a possible explanation for why it does or does not exist. Therefor P2 contradicts P3 making your logic flawed, so you're using a contradiction to make a contradiction to prove your point, whic imo is an inheretly flawed mechanism.

The only way your logic would work, is if God exists(which he may do ofc), so P2 assumes the existence of God, at least that's how I see it.

An argument isn't proof. You need evidence, otherwise its just speculation.Bourbons3

evidence is always lacking in these threads, and i wish they people would stop using the word "proof"

[QUOTE="domatron23"]

P1. It is proposed that a being is maximally excellent if it is omnipotent, omniscient and wholly good

P2. It is proposed that a being is unsurpassably great if it has maximal excellence and if there is no possible explanation which accounts for its non-existence

P3. Everything that exists or does not exist has a possible explanation for why it does or does not exist

P4. If an unsurpassably great being does not exist there is no possible explanation for why he does not exist (from 2)

P5. If an unsurpassably great being does not exist there is a possible explanation for why he does not exist (from 3)

P6. The proposition that an unsurpassably great being does not exist is self-contradictory and necessarily false (from 4 and 5)

Therefore: An unsurpassably great being exists

Dark-Sithious

Although you could draw question marks to several of your points.

A maximally great being that does not exist, naturally has an explanation to why it doesn't exist, following your point P3, Everything that exists or does not exist has a possible explanation for why it does or does not exist. Therefor P2 contradicts P3 making your logic flawed, so you're using a contradiction to make a contradiction to prove your point, whic imo is an inheretly flawed mechanism.

The only way your logic would work, is if God exists(which he may do ofc), so P2 assumes the existence of God, at least that's how I see it.

you are not entitled to half of those premises...namely 2, 4, and 6fat_rob

[QUOTE="Dark-Sithious"]

[QUOTE="domatron23"]

P1. It is proposed that a being is maximally excellent if it is omnipotent, omniscient and wholly good

P2. It is proposed that a being is unsurpassably great if it has maximal excellence and if there is no possible explanation which accounts for its non-existence

P3. Everything that exists or does not exist has a possible explanation for why it does or does not exist

P4. If an unsurpassably great being does not exist there is no possible explanation for why he does not exist (from 2)

P5. If an unsurpassably great being does not exist there is a possible explanation for why he does not exist (from 3)

P6. The proposition that an unsurpassably great being does not exist is self-contradictory and necessarily false (from 4 and 5)

Therefore: An unsurpassably great being exists

domatron23

Although you could draw question marks to several of your points.

A maximally great being that does not exist, naturally has an explanation to why it doesn't exist, following your point P3, Everything that exists or does not exist has a possible explanation for why it does or does not exist. Therefor P2 contradicts P3 making your logic flawed, so you're using a contradiction to make a contradiction to prove your point, whic imo is an inheretly flawed mechanism.

The only way your logic would work, is if God exists(which he may do ofc), so P2 assumes the existence of God, at least that's how I see it.

Wohoo! 10 points for me! :P

P1. It is proposed that a being is maximally excellent if it is omnipotent, omniscient and wholly good

P2. It is proposed that a being is unsurpassably great if it has maximal excellence and if there is no possible explanation which accounts for its non-existence

P3. Everything that exists or does not exist has a possible explanation for why it does or does not exist

P4. If an unsurpassably great being does not exist there is no possible explanation for why he does not exist (from 2)

P5. If an unsurpassably great being does not exist there is a possible explanation for why he does not exist (from 3)

P6. The proposition that an unsurpassably great being does not exist is self-contradictory and necessarily false (from 4 and 5)

Therefore: An unsurpassably great being exists

domatron23

How can a wholly good, omnipotent omniscient being exist, when injustices occur in the world?
A being that is unsurpassably great would not sit by and let them happen - if he does, then there's a conceivable being which is clearly greater than him (one that actually stops them) and *does not exist*. So...in that sense, God clearly doesn't exist?
Either that or your definitions are wrong.

Oh, and aren't there plenty of arguments against necessary existence? For example, didn't Kant argue that existence wasn't actually a property that could be attributed to things, but rather it simply describes things in relation to the real world? So you can give God as properties as you like, but none of them can imply existence...although I could be wrong about that.

Hm, also, assuming that your arguments are true, surely that 'proves' that an omnipotent being of pure evil also exists (since the worst possible being would be unsurpassably evil if it existed, therefore it must exist). Can two opposite being be omnipotent, or would that render them both totally powerless?

Everything must either exist or not exist.

If it does exist it will eventually be destroyed. If all things were just accidents eventually all would be destroyed. Everything which exists must have had a cause for its existence and the chain of causes can't go back indefinitely.

There must have been something which always existed. That thing is God.

LOLuMADzz

You say that everything that exists must have a cause. Then you say that there must be something that must not have a cause - God. These two statements contradict eachother - they can't both be true.

If the first is false, it doesn't prove God - it just shows that any number of things may or may not have causes. That could mean any number of 'Gods', or just...chaos.

If the second is false, then the chain of causes goes back indefinitely. I'm not sure what that means, but it could be possible, I suppose.

Either way, neither proves that there's an intelligent or powerful being or God.

An argument isn't proof. You need evidence, otherwise its just speculation.Bourbons3

[QUOTE="fat_rob"]you are not entitled to half of those premises...namely 2, 4, and 6domatron23

[QUOTE="domatron23"]

Meh the argument from evil is kind of beyond the scope of this thread. *insert theodicy here*.

[QUOTE="Planeforger"]Either that or your definitions are wrong.Planeforger

If you want to you could think of maximal excellence as just omnipotence and omniscience and leave out omnibenevolence.

Oh, and aren't there plenty of arguments against necessary existence? For example, didn't Kant argue that existence wasn't actually a property that could be attributed to things, but rather it simply describes things in relation to the real world? So you can give God as properties as you like, but none of them can imply existence...although I could be wrong about that.Planeforger

Yeah thats true, existence cannot form part of the definition of something. I didn't define the unsurpassably great being with existence though nor does the definition in and of itself imply necessary existence. We can only conclude existence by the virtue of premise 2 and premise 3 combined.

Hm, also, assuming that your arguments are true, surely that 'proves' that an omnipotent being of pure evil also exists (since the worst possible being would be unsurpassably evil if it existed, therefore it must exist). Can two opposite being be omnipotent, or would that render them both totally powerless?

Planeforger

Hmm I suppose that one might be able to say that an unsurpassably evil being would also be defined as having no explanation for its non-existence. Like I said earlier though, if I were to defend this argument I would claim that the lack of an explanation for non-existence is a "great" characteristic rather than an "evil" characteristic.

The arbitrary definition of unsurpassable greatness is certainly a problem though.

[QUOTE="Bourbons3"]An argument isn't proof. You need evidence, otherwise its just speculation.domatron23

[QUOTE="bangell99"]

I fail to see how this proves anything at all.domatron23

If God was truly perfect, he would have little reason to exist, or indeed to do anything. Why create this world if he was perfect?

bangell99

Premise 3 says that everything has a purpose for existence. If God's purpose was to create the Earth... Why? Who says God has to do anything? God would just "be", if he actually existed. The route of all actions is personal gain. Even if you give to charity, you do so because you feel good, knowing that others are well. As a perfect being, God would do nothing because he requires nothing.

You didn't really answer my question.

[QUOTE="domatron23"][QUOTE="fat_rob"]you are not entitled to half of those premises...namely 2, 4, and 6fat_rob

Premise 4 follows logically from the definition of unsurpassable greatness. Its not circular its valid logic.

the claim that all beings only act in their own self-interest is a bad theory because it provides no explanatory power. No matter what inputs you use, the outcome is the same. Thus the claim is unfalsifiable and thus is not a good theory of explanation of behaviors and actions.

I've seen these arguments before and you're applying logic to the assumption that God exists. It's the same as saying "God exists, therefore, God exists". Logically, there's no flaw in the argument because it's not an argument. It's a long-winded asumption.

[QUOTE="domatron23"]Well this argument (purportedly) provides the reason for Gods existence and furthermore it states that God must have reasons to do the things that he does (premise 3).bangell99

Premise 3 says that everything has a purpose for existence. If God's purpose was to create the Earth... Why? Who says God has to do anything? God would just "be", if he actually existed. The route of all actions is personal gain. Even if you give to charity, you do so because you feel good, knowing that others are well. As a perfect being, God would do nothing because he requires nothing.

You didn't really answer my question.

there is no such thing as god

[QUOTE="bangell99"]

[QUOTE="domatron23"]Well this argument (purportedly) provides the reason for Gods existence and furthermore it states that God must have reasons to do the things that he does (premise 3).domatron23

Premise 3 says that everything has a purpose for existence. If God's purpose was to create the Earth... Why? Who says God has to do anything? God would just "be", if he actually existed. The route of all actions is personal gain. Even if you give to charity, you do so because you feel good, knowing that others are well. As a perfect being, God would do nothing because he requires nothing.

You didn't really answer my question.

No, you can't explain what that explanation is, because there isn't one. God would not create the world if he was perfect, and no-one can provide me with a reason why. Tell me why God would do anything other than "be". Tell me that without simply saying "look at Premise 3 which I made", and I'll take this a little more seriously.

Of course it follows because you are using circular reasoning. You are starting with a definition that presupposes your conclusion and it is a definition that I will refuse to grant. You need to provide a separate argument for P2.fat_rob

This is as deep as Christians saying the God exists becouse scientists/atheists cant prove he doesnt and Atheists saying that God doesnt exist becouse Christians cant prove that he does.

[QUOTE="domatron23"]

[QUOTE="bangell99"]

Premise 3 says that everything has a purpose for existence. If God's purpose was to create the Earth... Why? Who says God has to do anything? God would just "be", if he actually existed. The route of all actions is personal gain. Even if you give to charity, you do so because you feel good, knowing that others are well. As a perfect being, God would do nothing because he requires nothing.

You didn't really answer my question.

bangell99

No, you can't explain what that explanation is, because there isn't one. God would not create the world if he was perfect, and no-one can provide me with a reason why. Tell me why God would do anything other than "be". Tell me that without simply saying "look at Premise 3 which I made", and I'll take this a little more seriously.

I've seen these arguments before and you're applying logic to the assumption that God exists. It's the same as saying "God exists, therefore, God exists". Logically, there's no flaw in the argument because it's not an argument. It's a long-winded asumption.

DigitalExile

[QUOTE="fat_rob"] Of course it follows because you are using circular reasoning. You are starting with a definition that presupposes your conclusion and it is a definition that I will refuse to grant. You need to provide a separate argument for P2.domatron23

[QUOTE="bangell99"]

[QUOTE="domatron23"] Premise 3 doesn't require that God gains something by being good, just that there is an explanation for anything and everything that happens. Ergo if God does something it follows that there is an explanation for why he did it. I can't identify that explanation but nevertheless that's what premise 3 implies.

fat_rob

No, you can't explain what that explanation is, because there isn't one. God would not create the world if he was perfect, and no-one can provide me with a reason why. Tell me why God would do anything other than "be". Tell me that without simply saying "look at Premise 3 which I made", and I'll take this a little more seriously.

Then what motivates God? What causes this perfect being to create irregular things like the Earth?

[QUOTE="DigitalExile"]

I've seen these arguments before and you're applying logic to the assumption that God exists. It's the same as saying "God exists, therefore, God exists". Logically, there's no flaw in the argument because it's not an argument. It's a long-winded asumption.

domatron23